I run either links2 or dillo as my main browsers http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/ http://www.dillo.org/ keeping opera,firebird and mozilla around justincase. Links2 seems to be my new favorite over dillo cause it handles ftp, ssl, javascript, and plays nice with netscape bookmarks that I converted from opera. But it doesn't have the normal forward button, has trouble with inputboxes (hotmail, slashdot) and In general has a few things that need getting used to. window manager: fluxbox has tabs and speed, 'nuff said. As one reply mentioned tinyX try it out. Xfbdev, Xvesa, etc Use rxvt as your terminal, its very cheap I use a 233 with 64 mb ram but when using these apps I don't even notice what system I'm on. so they should be decent for something slower. e-mail I use sylpheed. alot of functionality for its responsiveness On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:10:28 -0700 Gordon Pritchard <gordonp@xxxxxx> said: > On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 21:15, Robert L Cochran wrote: > > > I see from the release notes for Red Hat 9 that the minimum CPU is a > > Pentium class and the minumum memory is 64 Mb, rock bottom. > > My question is, what is the lowest-end system that one can get > > realistically decent graphics performance from with Red Hat 9? Including > > internetting and office management tasks? A Pentium 90? Pentium 66? How > > low can I go before the hardware chokes the OS performance-wise? > > I ran a P-166/64MB with RH8. Out-of-the-box, it was very slow doing > anything in X (1024x768, 16bpp). I was not happy with it (but that > unhappiness ultimately led to a new machine :-) ). > > The only way I could get reasonable performance was to change > window-managers. First, I tried the very-minimalist one that was > included (twm???). Later, I installed and tried iceWM. Now, I was > happy with iceWM: the machine seemed snappy and responsive. > > I never tried it with office-type apps, but browsing (Galeon was my > choice, after watching system-resource-consumption with alternatives) > was fine. I also used a number of ham-radio applications, and they too > were fine (but not graphically-intensive). > > So, my bottom-line suggestion is that X and in particular the WM will > dictate largely how satisfied you will be. Out-of-the-box, I don't > think RH9 is very usable on the low-end Pentium stuff you're suggesting, > for the apps you're considering. > > My $0.02, > -Gord > > -- > Gordon Pritchard, P.Eng. | Institute of Electrical and > Research Labs Manager | Electronics Engineers > Simon Fraser University, Surrey | Quarter Century Wireless Ass'n > gordonp@xxxxxx | Telephone Pioneers of America > phone: 604.268.7509 | Amateur Radio: VA7SFU, VA7GP > > > -- > Shrike-list mailing list > Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
